Sudan alleges genocide against the Masalit group by the RSF in West Darfur, with accusations of UAE support for the militia. Sudan’s attempt to address claims at the ICJ faces challenges due to UAE’s treaty reservations. Experts note that the case could serve to generate global attention on the conflict, reflecting a shift in how states engage with international law.
Since 2023, a genocide has reportedly been occurring in Sudan, specifically targeting the Masalit ethnic group in West Darfur, according to Sudan’s application to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on March 4, 2025. The Rapid Support Forces (RSF) and allied militias are accused of systemic targeting based on ethnic identity and skin color, leading to extrajudicial killings, ethnic cleansing, and sexual violence against women and girls from the Masalit group.
In El Geneina, the RSF allegedly besieged the city for 58 days between April and June 2023, resulting in severe humanitarian violations. Reports indicate that the RSF engaged in horrific acts including burning civilians alive, forced displacements, and preventing access to vital supplies for those remaining. The militia has been accused of deliberately targeting men, boys, and women from specific ethnic groups.
Sudan accuses the United Arab Emirates (UAE) of supporting the RSF and fueling the conflict. The UAE is said to provide substantial financial aid and military resources, including fighter drones, and has reportedly been training RSF members. Furthermore, Sudan asserts that UAE agents are leading RSF militia forces in their operations, effectively tying the militia’s actions to the UAE government.
Regional analysts support Sudan’s claims, noting evidence from UN experts that the UAE is the primary supplier for the RSF. Reports have indicated that Chad is being utilized as a base for UAE to transfer weapons to Sudan, evidencing the UAE’s significant involvement in the conflict. Experts opine that the RSF hinges on Emirati support for its survival.
Despite the serious allegations, Sudan faces significant obstacles in bringing this matter before the ICJ due to the UAE’s treaty reservation which arguably blocks ICJ jurisdiction over the case. Historical advisory opinions have affirmed the legitimacy of such reservations, complicating Sudan’s ability to challenge the UAE’s role in these atrocities. Furthermore, previous cases have fortified that ICJ may not hold states accountable under the Genocide Convention if they have made such reservations.
Sudan’s approach to the ICJ could also be interpreted as a strategic move to generate global attention regarding the conflict, considering that states have recently begun leveraging the Genocide Convention to gain traction in international courts. With high-profile cases emerging in recent years, Sudan’s action may highlight its frustrations and an attempt to exert pressure on the UAE through international discourse.
The ICJ has become a notable platform for publicizing controversial state behavior, and Sudan’s case may serve as a mechanism to raise awareness about human rights violations and compel other nations to address the UAE’s involvement in the Darfur conflict, even if the legal proceedings are unlikely to resolve in their favor.
The current climate suggests a shifting perspective on the utility of international legal frameworks like the ICJ, as nations appear more willing to confront adversaries through legal avenues, potentially redefining state interactions within international law.
The ongoing situation in Sudan highlights the interplay between international law and state behavior, especially concerning genocidal actions and external support. Sudan’s accusations against the UAE underscore the complexities of legal jurisdiction under the ICJ, especially when treaty reservations are involved. While Sudan’s case may ultimately face significant hurdles, its strategic efforts to gain international attention signal a broader trend of using platforms like the ICJ for not only legal debate but also political leverage. This shift reflects a new approach by states in invoking international law amid rising tensions globally.
Original Source: www.justiceinfo.net
